EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND PUBLIC POLICY:
COMPARING RESULTS FROM 16 COUNTRIES
By Joel D. Sherman and Jeffrey M. Poirier
UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Montreal, 2007
adopted by 20 countries at the London Conference in November 1945 and entered into effect on 4 November 1946. The Organization currently has 191 Member States and six Associate Members.
The main objective of UNESCO is to contribute to peace and security in the world by promoting collaboration among nations through education, science, culture and communication in order to foster universal respect for justice, the rule of law, and the human rights and fundamental freedoms that are affirmed for the peoples of the world, without distinction of race, sex, language or religion, by the Charter of the United Nations.
To fulfil its mandate, UNESCO performs five principal functions: 1) prospective studies on education, science, culture and communication for tomorrow's world; 2) the advancement, transfer and sharing of knowledge through research, training and teaching activities; 3) standard-setting actions for the preparation and adoption of internal instruments and statutory recommendations; 4) expertise through technical co-operation to Member States for their development policies and projects; and 5) the exchange of specialized information.
UNESCO is headquartered in Paris, France.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics
The UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) is the statistical office of UNESCO and is the UN depository for global statistics in the fields of education, science and technology, culture and communication.
UIS was established in 1999. It was created to improve UNESCO's statistical programme and to develop and deliver the timely, accurate and policy-relevant statistics needed in today's increasingly complex and rapidly changing social, political and economic environments.
UIS is based in Montreal, Canada.
American Institutes for Research (AIR)
Since its founding in 1946 as an independent, non-profit and non-partisan organization, the American Institutes for Research (AIR) has conducted more than 3,500 projects providing basic and applied research, technical support and management services to government agencies, non-profit organizations and private companies. AIR’s work in education spans both the domestic and international areas, with the latter including extensive work in comparative education and international development.
1000 Thomas Jefferson Street NW; Washington, DC 20007-3835; United States; www.air.org.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics
P.O. Box 6128, Succursale Centre-Ville Montreal, Quebec H3C 3J7
Canada
Tel: (1 514) 343-6880 Fax: (1 514) 343-5740
Email: [email protected] http://www.uis.unesco.org
ISBN 92-9189-041-3
© UNESCO-UIS 2007 Ref: UIS/WP/06-03
Cover design: JCNicholls Design Printed by: ICAO
The right to education has been recognised by the international community for the last half century and has led to increasing interest in the equity of countries’ education systems. However, the term “equity” is subject to a variety of interpretations. Most would agree that education systems that are “equitable” provide high-quality education to all children, regardless of their background or where they live. But from there, opinions diverge about what aspect of education should be distributed “equitably” to whom and about what levels of disparity are “equitable” or “inequitable”.
Recognising the lack of a common language for discussing the issue of equity in education, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) undertook a study to bring together some of the diverse approaches to equity and to provide a more systematic approach to conceptualising and measuring the equity of countries’ education systems. This study comes at an important time for policymakers, particularly in developing countries that are striving to attain the goal of Education for All. With appropriate tools in hand, policymakers will be in a better position to assess the equity of their education systems and to develop and implement policies and programmes to address the most critical related issues.
This report presents the results of the study in three components. First, it provides a context for understanding the current interest in educational equity through a review of the evolution of international concerns about equity and previous efforts to define and measure equity more systematically. Second, it presents a framework for measuring educational equity, along with methods for comparing the equity of countries’ education systems using a set of standard statistical measures. Finally, it demonstrates the application of the framework in 16 of the largest, most-populous countries around the world. These include three countries in Africa (Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa), five in Asia (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan), five in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru), along with Canada, the Russian Federation and the United States.
The empirical analysis conducted in this report centers on three specific “objects” of
equity. One is a measure of access (enrolment ratios) and two are measures of
resources allocated to education (expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios). The
framework is applied using two main principles of equity – horizontal equity and equal
educational opportunity. Horizontal equity examines disparities in access to education
and resources for education within countries, using selected measures of dispersion
that reflect different concerns of education policy. Equal educational opportunity
examines the relationship between wealth and the three objects of equity, as well as
urban/rural differences in the provision of access to education and educational
resources.
In presenting the application of the equity framework, geographic regions within countries are used as the unit of analysis. In federal countries, these units are generally states, provinces and other political jurisdictions with authority over education; in non- federal countries, the units are usually the first administrative entity below the national level. The analysis of horizontal equity focuses on disparities across these units in access and resources; the analysis of equal educational opportunity relates regions’
wealth (measured as regional product per capita) and population density (a proxy for urban/rural location) with the objects of equity. Coefficients of correlation are used to measure the direction and size of these relationships.
We recognise that regional disparities are not the primary concern of policymakers in all countries and that disparities based on gender, race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status may be more significant than geographic disparities. We, therefore, suggest that the analyses presented in the report should not be used as the sole basis for judging whether a country’s education system is “equitable” or “inequitable;” other analyses are needed to fully inform this issue.
However, it is also important to note that geographic disparities are of great importance in many countries, particularly large federal countries, and that there is a long tradition of research on this topic in both developing and developed countries. In the former, the focus has frequently been on access to education, with urban/rural disparities at the core of policy debates. In the latter, the focus has historically been on disparities in resources provided for public education; in recent years, the emphasis has shifted to education outcomes, particularly student achievement. We view the empirical work presented in this report as an extension of that stream of research.
Selected findings from the study
This study attempted to compare countries on key aspects of educational policy and to assess the relative equity of their education systems, based on differences in access to education and the provision of educational resources in major geographical divisions.
Before presenting some of the key findings, a few caveats are in order.
First, the findings presented represent a single but important dimension of equity in
education. Second, even within the analyses presented here, there is not complete
consistency in countries’ rankings on all access and resource measures. Countries may
rank highly on one measure of educational resources and not so well on another. Third,
countries’ comparative rankings on educational equity may depend on the group of
countries used in the comparisons. A different mix of countries could produce different
determinations in our equity assessment. Finally, disparities within countries may often
result from intended acts of policy (e.g. the provision of greater resources in poorer
areas to compensate for their lack) that are producing the desired results. It is therefore
important not to “over-interpret” the findings regarding geographical disparities and to
conclude categorically that one country’s education system is more equitable than
another’s.
Horizontal equity: Regional disparities
Table A provides an overview of countries’ relative standing on horizontal equity, based on the three objects of equity examined in this study: enrolment ratios, expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios. Countries that fall at the “top” of the rankings tend to have relatively small disparities across regions; countries in the “bottom” tend to have relatively large disparities; while countries in the “middle” tend to have moderate disparities relative to other countries. Based on these findings, we find the following:
Access to education: Enrolment ratios
• Among the nine countries reporting enrolment ratios for both primary and secondary education, only Mexico has relatively small disparities at both education levels. Egypt and the Russian Federation have moderate disparities in access to primary and secondary education, while India and Brazil tend to have large regional disparities.
• Argentina and Peru have relatively small regional disparities in access to primary education and moderate disparities in secondary education, while the reverse is the case in South Africa. Indonesia has moderate disparities in access to primary education and relatively large disparities at the secondary level.
• Among countries only reporting primary enrolment ratios, disparities are relatively small in China and relatively large in Bangladesh and Pakistan. At the secondary level, disparities in enrolment ratios are relatively small in Canada and the United States.
Educational resources: Expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios
• Canada, Peru, South Africa and the United States show the smallest inter- regional disparities in expenditure per pupil for primary and secondary education. Argentina, Brazil, Mexico and the Russian Federation fall in the middle range, while China, Egypt and India have the largest disparities in expenditure per pupil across their regions.
• Overall, there is a strong correspondence between countries’ rankings on
regional disparities in expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios in primary
and secondary education. Canada, Peru, South Africa and the United States
are at or near the top of the rankings on both measures, Brazil and the
Russian Federation are in the middle, with Egypt and India at the bottom of
the rankings.
• Disparities in pupil-teacher ratios in primary education are smallest in Argentina, Brazil, Indonesia, Mexico and Peru; in the moderate range in Bangladesh, China, Ecuador and the United States; and largest in Egypt, India, Nigeria and Pakistan.
• Disparities in pupil-teacher ratios at the secondary level show some similarities and some differences with primary education: disparities are smallest in China, Indonesia, Mexico and Peru; in the moderate range in Brazil, Ecuador, Egypt, Nigeria and the United States; and largest in Argentina, India and Pakistan.
Table A. Country placements on horizontal equity analyses of enrolment ratios, expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios
Country
Primary enrolment
ratio
Secondary enrolment
ratio
Primary and secondary expenditure
per pupil
Primary pupil- teacher ratio
Secondary pupil- teacher ratio
Primary and secondary
pupil- teacher ratio
Argentina top middle middle top bottom bottom
Bangladesh bottom * * middle * *
Brazil bottom bottom middle top middle middle
Canada * top top * * top
China top * bottom middle top middle
Ecuador * * * middle middle middle
Egypt middle middle bottom bottom middle bottom
India bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom bottom
Indonesia middle bottom * top top middle
Mexico top top middle top top top
Nigeria * * * bottom middle bottom
Pakistan bottom * * bottom bottom middle
Peru top middle top top top top
Russian Federation middle middle middle * * middle
South Africa middle top top * * top
United States * top top middle middle top
* Not available.
Equal educational opportunity
Table B provides a summary of findings from the analysis of educational opportunity using the relationship between regional wealth and regional enrolment ratios, expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios. In the table, a dash (“-”) signifies that countries tend to have lower enrolment ratios, lower expenditure per pupil or lower pupil-teacher ratios in wealthier regions; and a plus sign (“+”) signifies that countries tend to have higher enrolment ratios, higher expenditure per pupil or higher pupil- teacher ratios in wealthier regions. An asterisk (“*”) is used in instances where a country does not have a consistent relationship between regional wealth and a given measure.
Where the relationships are strongly positive or negative (greater than +0.50 or less than -0.50), there are no additions to the designated signs. However, parentheses are used to indicate relationships that are statistically weak (between -0.50 and -0.25 or between 0.25 and 0.50).
Access to education: Enrolment ratios
• Egypt, Mexico and Peru perform most poorly on this dimension of equity, with moderate to strong positive relationships between regional wealth and enrolments ratios in both primary and secondary education. In Argentina, Brazil, Canada, India, Indonesia, South Africa and the United States, wealthier regions also tend to have higher enrolment ratios in secondary education.
• Poorer regions tend to have higher enrolment ratios in primary education in four countries: Argentina, Brazil, India and South Africa. However, India is the only country where the relationship is strong.
Educational resources: Expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios
• Wealthy regions tend to provide greater expenditure per pupil for primary and secondary education in the 10 countries with available data. The relationships are strong in Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, South Africa and the United States, and moderate in Egypt, Mexico, Peru and the Russian Federation.
• Higher expenditure results in lower primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios in wealthier regions in seven of these countries – Argentina, Brazil, Canada, China, Egypt, India and Peru.
• Wealthier regions also tend to have lower pupil-teacher ratios in primary
education in Argentina, Brazil, China, Egypt, India and Peru. The same
pattern is found in secondary education in these six countries, as well as in
Mexico.
Table B. Findings from the analysis of equal educational opportunity – The relationship between regional wealth and regional enrolment
ratios, expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios
Country
Primary enrolment
ratio
Secondary enrolment
ratio
Primary and secondary expenditure
per pupil
Primary pupil- teacher ratio
Secondary pupil- teacher ratio
Primary and secondary pupil-teacher
ratio
Argentina (-) + + - (-) -
Brazil - + + (-) (-) (-)
Canada n/a + + n/a n/a -
China (+) n/a + (-) (-) (-)
Egypt (+) (+) (+) (-) (-) (-)
India - (+) * (-) (-) (-)
Indonesia * (+) n/a * * *
Mexico (+) (+) (+) (+) (-) *
Nigeria n/a n/a n/a * * *
Peru (+) + (+) (-) (-) -
Russian Federation * * (+) n/a n/a *
South Africa (-) (+) + n/a n/a *
United States n/a + + * * *
n/a: Data not available.
* Not a statistically significant relationship (correlation between -0.25 and +0.25).
Table of contents
Page
Executive summary...iii
Acknowledgements ... 13
1. Introduction ... 15
2. Contextualising and defining educational equity ... 17
I. Efforts to support educational rights and equity... 17
A. The United Nations ... 17
B. Other international efforts... 18
C. Efforts to measure equity ... 19
II. Developing a framework to measure equity in education ... 20
3. The equity framework ... 22
I. Targets of equity concerns ... 22
II. Objects ... 22
A. Access and progression... 23
B. Resources... 23
C. Results ... 23
III. Equity principles ... 24
A. Horizontal equity ... 24
B. Vertical equity ... 24
C. Equal educational opportunity (EEO)... 25
IV. Measuring equity ... 26
A. Measures of horizontal equity ... 26
1. Range ratio ... 27
2. McLoone Index/adjusted McLoone Index ... 27
3. Coefficient of variation ... 28
4. Gini coefficient ... 28
B. Measures of vertical equity ... 30
C. Measures of equal educational opportunity... 30
V. Overview ... 31
4. Application of the equity framework: enrolment ratios ... 32
I. Introduction to the analysis... 32
A. Countries selected for analysis ... 32
B. Presentation of the analyses... 36
II. Enrolment ratios ... 37
A. Horizontal equity analysis ... 38
1. Primary education... 38
2. Secondary education ... 40
B. Equal educational opportunity... 43
1. Regional wealth and enrolment ratios... 43
2. Regional population density and enrolment ratios ... 44
C. Horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity... 45
5. Application of the equity framework: Expenditure per pupil ... 47
I. Horizontal equity analysis... 47
A. Composite rankings ... 49
B. Consistency of rankings on equity measures... 50
II. Equal educational opportunity ... 51
A. Regional wealth and expenditure per pupil ... 51
B. Regional population density and expenditure per pupil... 52
III. Horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity ... 53
IV. Changes in horizontal equity ... 54
V. Changes in equal educational opportunity ... 56
A. Regional wealth and expenditure per pupil ... 56
B. Regional population density and expenditure per pupil... 57
6. Application of the equity framework: Pupil-teacher ratios ... 58
I. Horizontal equity analysis... 58
A. Primary education ... 60
1. Composite rankings ... 61
2. Consistency of rankings on equity measures ... 62
B. Secondary education ... 63
1. Composite rankings ... 63
2. Consistency of rankings on equity measures ... 65
C. Combined primary and secondary education... 66
1. Composite rankings ... 67
2. Consistency of rankings on equity measures ... 68
D. Consistency of rankings on horizontal equity in primary, secondary and combined primary and secondary education ... 69
II. Equal educational opportunity ... 70
A. Regional wealth and pupil-teacher ratios ... 70
B. Regional population density and pupil-teacher ratios... 72
III. Horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity ... 73
A. Primary education ... 73
B. Secondary education ... 74
C. Combined primary and secondary education... 75
D. Summary of findings ... 76
IV. Changes in horizontal equity ... 78
A. Primary education ... 78
B. Secondary education ... 80
C. Primary and secondary education... 81
D. Summary of findings ... 82
V. Changes in equal educational opportunity ... 84
A. Regional wealth and pupil-teacher ratios ... 84
B. Regional population density and pupil-teacher ratios... 85
Appendix 1. Sources, methods and technical notes ... 87
Appendix 2. References... 105
Appendix 3. Glossary... 113
Appendix 4. Equity-related education laws, policies and
research in core countries... 118
Tables
Page
3.1 Types of objects ... 22
3.2 Illustration of Gini coefficient – distribution of pupil-teacher ratios for country A ... 29
3.3 Illustration of Gini coefficient – distribution of pupil-teacher ratios for country B ... 30
4.1 Type of government, name of regions and number of regions in countries... 33
4.2 Population and area of countries ... 33
4.3 Gross product per capita and population density... 35
4.4 National primary enrolment ratios ... 38
4.5 Horizontal equity measures of primary enrolment ratios... 39
4.6 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of primary enrolment ratios ... 39
4.7 National secondary enrolment ratios... 41
4.8 Horizontal equity measures of secondary enrolment ratios... 41
4.9 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of secondary enrolment ratios... 42
5.1 National public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil ... 48
5.2 Horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil.... 48
5.3 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil ... 49
5.4 Change in national average public primary and secondary expenditure per pupil ... 55
5.5 Horizontal equity measures of public primary and secondary expenditure per pupil, 1995 and 2002 ... 55
5.6 Correlation between GRP per capita and public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil, 1995 and 2002... 56
5.7 Correlation between regional population density and public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil, 1995 and 2002... 57
6.1 National public primary pupil-teacher ratios... 59
6.2 National public secondary pupil-teacher ratios ... 59
6.3 Horizontal equity measures of public primary pupil-teacher ratios ... 60
6.4 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of public primary pupil-teacher ratios ... 60
6.5 Horizontal equity measures of public secondary pupil-teacher ratios... 63
6.6 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of public secondary pupil-teacher ratios ... 63
6.7 Horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios... 66
6.8 Ranking order on horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios ... 66
6.9 Correlation between GRP per capita and public pupil-teacher ratios ... 71
6.10 Correlation between regional population density and public pupil-teacher ratios... 72
6.11 Change in national average public primary pupil-teacher ratios... 79
6.12 Horizontal equity measures of public primary pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002 ... 79
6.13 Change in national average public secondary pupil-teacher ratios ... 80
6.14 Horizontal equity measures of public secondary pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002 ... 81
6.15 Change in national average public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios ... 81
6.16 Horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002... 82
6.17 Correlation between GRP per capita and public pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002... 84
6.18 Correlation between regional population density and public pupil-teacher ratios, 1995 and 2002 ... 86
Figures
Page
3.1 Objects and targets of equity ... 23
3.2 Interpreting horizontal equity measures ... 27
3.3 Illustration of the Gini coefficient ... 29
3.4 Overview of the equity framework... 31
4.1 Primary enrolment ratio ranking orders on horizontal equity measures ... 40
4.2 Secondary enrolment ratio ranking orders on horizontal equity measures... 42
4.3 Correlation between GRP per capita and primary and secondary enrolment ratios ... 43
4.4 Correlation between population density and primary and secondary enrolment ratios ... 44
4.5 Country positions on horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity measures of enrolment ratios in primary (P) and secondary (S) education ... 45
5.1 Average rankings on horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil ... 50
5.2 Public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil ranking orders on horizontal equity measures ... 51
5.3 Correlation between GRP per capita and public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil ... 52
5.4 Correlation between regional population density and public combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil ... 53
5.5 Country positions on horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity measures of expenditure per pupil in public combined primary and secondary education ... 54
6.1 Average rankings on horizontal equity measures of public primary pupil-teacher ratios... 61
6.2 Public primary pupil-teacher ratio ranking orders on horizontal equity measures ... 62
6.3 Average rankings on horizontal equity measures of public secondary pupil-teacher ratios ... 64
6.4 Public secondary pupil-teacher ratio rank orders on horizontal equity measures ... 65
6.5 Average rankings on horizontal equity measures of public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratios ... 67
6.6 Public combined primary and secondary pupil-teacher ratio ranking orders on horizontal equity measures ... 68
6.7 Consistency of horizontal equity measures across levels of education... 69
6.8 Country positions on horizontal equity measures by levels of education ... 70
6.9 Correlation between GRP per capita and public pupil-teacher ratios ... 71
6.10 Correlation between regional population density and public pupil-teacher ratios... 73
6.11 Country positions on horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity measures in public primary education... 74
6.12 Country positions on horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity measures in public secondary education... 75
6.13 Country positions on horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity measures in public combined primary and secondary education ... 76
6.14 Country positions on horizontal equity and equal educational opportunity measures in public primary (P), secondary (S) and combined primary and secondary (P-S) education... 77
6.15 Comparison of change in horizontal equity measures, by level of education ... 83
Acknowledgements
This paper was prepared as part of a contract with the American Institutes for Research (AIR). The authors gratefully acknowledge the UIS technical representative for this work, Albert Motivans, in addition to the various representatives from Ministries of Education and other organizations that shared data, policy-related publications and comments on the draft analyses. We also thank those who contributed to the production of the report. This includes four AIR research staff – Nicholas W. Read, Edward H.
Stigletz, Jessica Thomas and Euhwa Tran – who were instrumental to the data
collection effort and helped to develop the summaries in Appendix 4. Finally, we wish to
thank UIS staff who assisted with formatting and publishing. The views expressed in this
paper are our own and should not be associated with UNESCO.
1. Introduction
The right to education has been recognised by the international community for the last half century and has led to increasing interest in the equity of countries’ education systems. However, the term “equity” is subject to a variety of interpretations. Most would agree that education systems that are “equitable” provide high-quality education to all children, regardless of their background or where they live. But from there, opinions diverge about what aspects of education should be distributed “equitably” to whom and about what levels of disparity are “equitable” or “inequitable”.
Recognising the lack of a common language for discussing the issue of equity in education, the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) undertook this study to bring together some of the diverse approaches to equity and to provide a more systematic approach to conceptualising and measuring the equity of countries’ education systems.
The study comes at an important time for policymakers, particularly in developing countries that are striving to attain the goal of Education for All. With appropriate tools in hand, policymakers will be in a better position to assess the equity of their education systems and to develop and implement policies and programmes that address the most critical equity issues.
The study involved three main activities. The first was the collection and review of the research literature on educational equity, with a focus on conceptual and methodological approaches to measuring equity in education. From this literature, we developed a framework to guide the measurement of disparity in education access, resources and results across geographic areas within countries. The second activity was the selection of countries for the equity analysis and the collection of extant sub- national data on participation ratios, human and financial resources and educational outcomes from each of these countries. The third activity was the application of the equity framework and the development of equity measures for countries with available data. The measures for each country were brought together to provide an analysis of the way these countries compare on selected aspects of equity in education.
At the beginning of the project, 16 of the largest, most populous developing and developed countries around the globe were selected for inclusion in the study. These included three countries in Africa (Egypt, Nigeria and South Africa), five in Asia (Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia and Pakistan), and five in Latin America (Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico and Peru), along with Canada, the Russian Federation and the United States. We subsequently expanded the sample beyond the
“core” 16, adding eight countries in Asia (Australia, Cambodia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Sri Lanka and Thailand) and five countries in Latin America (Bolivia,
Chile, Colombia, Paraguay and Uruguay).
For the core countries, we conducted a review of national policies intended to promote equity in access to education, human and financial resources for education and educational outcomes. This review included materials on equity-related education laws and policy statements in addition to equity-related research and policy studies. Findings from this review are provided for 10 of the core countries (Bangladesh, Brazil, China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Russian Federation and South Africa).
We also include overviews of the social context of education in these countries, including: demographics, economy, geography and government; the organization of primary and secondary education; and education governance.
Each of the reports contains the same organizational structure. Chapter 2 describes the
context of educational equity, including the evolution of interest in equity at the
international level. Chapter 3 presents the framework for the equity analysis, using three
indicators as an illustration. These include one measure of access to education
(enrolment ratios) and two measures of educational resources (expenditure per pupil
and pupil-teacher ratios). Chapters 4, 5 and 6 demonstrate the application of the equity
framework to each of these indicators and analyse countries’ rankings on selected
measures of disparity and equal educational opportunity (EEO). Annex 1 provides
sources, methods and technical notes on the data analysed in the report. Annex 2 lists
references and Annex 3 provides a glossary of key terms. Finally, Annex 4 of this report
provides a summary of equity-related education laws, policies and research.
2. Contextualising and defining educational equity
Equity is a fundamentally important concept that can be used to characterise the fairness and effectiveness of education systems. Although it is not a new issue in both developing and developed countries, educational equity has received renewed interest because it is more widely recognised as a basic human right (Cavicchioni and Motivans, 2001). However, a rights-based approach, evident in a set of international accords discussed below, is but one reason countries have to pay attention to issues of educational equity.
A second reason for increased attention to educational equity is the emerging belief that providing all people with the skills to remain employable throughout their lives is essential to achieving satisfactory levels of individual and social well-being (Demeuse, Crahay and Monseur, 2001; Meuret, 2001) and to sustaining desirable levels of economic growth and development. In the words of Kofi Annan in a report to the UN,
“education is the key to the new global economy...It is central to development, social progress and human freedom” (Annan, 2000), as well as to “sustained poverty reduction” (Cavicchioni and Motivans, 2001).
This chapter attempts to provide a framework for the empirical analysis that follows by highlighting some of the major events that led to the development of educational equity as a major international issue and by discussing some of the more important efforts to conceptualise and measure educational equity.
I. Efforts to support educational rights and equity A. The United Nations
The United Nations was instrumental in making educational rights an important part of broader concerns about human rights over the last half century. International support for educational rights can be traced back to the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the General Assembly of the United Nations in 1948. Although this declaration was not legally binding, Article 26 proclaimed that all people have the right to education and that elementary education be compulsory and free (UN, 1948). This was followed by the Convention Against Discrimination in Education in 1960, which was adopted by the UN partly due to advocacy for greater educational equity by social groups (Cavicchioni and Motivans, 2001). This convention supported the right to education by defining discrimination as efforts to diminish equality of treatment in education, based on race, gender, language, religion, political or other beliefs, geographic location, national or social origin, or economic condition (UNESCO, 1960).
The responsibility of countries to develop policies that promote equality of opportunity and equal treatment in education was an important tenet of this accord.
The right of children to equal educational opportunity was reinvigorated and expanded
by The Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 28 of this UN accord became
legally binding after 192 countries of the General Assembly ratified and made it
international law in 1989 (UN, 1989). It recognises the right of all children to free, compulsory primary education; access to different forms of secondary education; and access to educational and vocational information and guidance (UN, 1989). It also points to the state role in encouraging regular attendance and reducing dropout rates.
The convention is notable because it is the first time that standards of children’s human rights were clearly defined and synthesised into one legal instrument (UNICEF, n.d.).
Beginning in the 1990s, concern over educational disparities in less-developed countries emerged as a key issue in development policy debates (Cavicchioni and Motivans, 2001). No doubt this was due to increased international support for educational opportunity for all, evidenced by the aforementioned declaration and conventions of the UN, as well as the continued need for all children in less-developed countries to have equal access to basic education. The World Conference on Education for All in 1990, which convened representatives from 155 countries in Jomtien, Thailand, led to an internationally supported approach to universalising primary education and reducing illiteracy – Framework for Action: Meeting Basic Learning Needs.
The preamble of this framework drew attention to the challenges confronting efforts to educate all: 100 million children without access to primary education, 100 million children failing to complete basic education programmes and high illiteracy rates (UNESCO, 2001b). Of particular significance, Article III of the framework focused on equity concerns by explicitly calling for reductions in educational disparities based on gender or minority group status (UNESCO, 2001b). These underserved groups include the poor; rural and remote populations; and ethnic, racial and linguistic minorities.
More recently, the 2000 World Education Forum in Dakar, Senegal, reaffirmed the goals of the Jomtien world conference. The 164 participating countries adopted the Dakar Framework for Action, reiterating the importance of equitable access to free primary education of good quality that all children complete. The framework also brought attention to the need for adequate, equitable and sustainable resources, which it pointed to as the greatest challenge to implementing education for all (UNESCO, 2001a). Also in 2000, the 55
thsession of the United Nations, referred to as the Millennium Summit, convened in New York and, at its conclusion, declared that governments have a collective responsibility to uphold educational equality and equity.
Among the goals established during the summit were universal primary education and the elimination of gender disparities in education by 2015, if not by 2005 in the case of primary and secondary education (United Nations Development Programme, n.d.).
B. Other international efforts
Other international bodies also played important roles – supporting efforts to reduce
educational inequity and improve access for all. In 1994, the Summit of the Americas,
which is supported by nine partner institutions, including the Organization of American
States and the World Bank, and which brings together the heads of state and
government of countries in the western hemisphere, held its first summit in Miami.
During this meeting it developed a plan of action that included universal literacy and universal access to education at all levels and without regard to race, national origin or gender (Summit of the Americas Secretariat, 2004b). This plan called for primary completion ratios of 100% by 2010, secondary enrolment ratios of at least 75% and programmes to prevent truancy.
Two years later, as part of its findings at the conclusion of a meeting in Geneva, the Inter-Parliamentary Union and its 140 members recommended that prosperity and knowledge be more equitably shared so that all are able to receive an education (IPU, 1996). Then in 1999, the 53 member states of the African Union passed a charter agreeing that every child has a right to education and that special measures should be taken to ensure equal access for all members of the community, including girls as well as gifted and disadvantaged children (African Union, 1999).
International support of educational equity has continued into the 21
stcentury. The third Summit of the Americas, held in Quebec City in 2001, reaffirmed the goals of previous summits to promote equity and quality at all levels of education. The summit’s plan of action also emphasised the importance of providing education to girls, children in rural areas, children with disabilities and indigenous or other minority children (Summit of the Americas Secretariat, 2004a).
C. Efforts to measure equity
The advancement of educational equity by international bodies has been joined by efforts to study and measure educational equity. For example, in 2001 the Partnership for Educational Revitalization in the Americas (PREAL), a joint effort of the Inter- American Dialogue in Washington, D.C. and the Corporation for Development Research in Santiago, Chile, released the first report card on Latin American education. Its work was intended to increase accountability and increase awareness of the results of Latin American education systems. PREAL rated the equity of Latin American education systems as “very poor” because poor, rural and indigenous children rarely receive quality education. Using data compiled from diverse sources, it found significant inequities in education levels and enrolment ratios based on income and urbanicity across the countries.
In addition, the European Union recently commissioned a study that developed a theoretical framework composed of 29 qualitative or quantitative educational equity indicators (European Commission, 2003). These indicators are built into a framework composed of four dimensions of educational equality: context (e.g. economic and social inequalities, cultural resources), process (e.g. quantity or quality of education received), internal results (e.g. skills, personal development), and social and political effects.
Equity is also prominent on the policy agendas of member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), and a wide array of policy measures seek to prevent, redress or reduce existing inequalities (Cochran, 2001;
Healy and Istance, 2001). The OECD itself has been significantly involved in issues
related to educational equity and is currently building on its prior work through a comparative study focusing on the relative equality of outcomes of OECD education systems. This important work is intended to support countries’ efforts to develop and implement policies designed to promote educational equity, with a focus on regional disparities as well as other dimensions of equity.
II. Developing a framework to measure equity in education
Defining educational equity is a difficult undertaking. The European Commission (2003) recently stated that “anyone who talks about equity rather than equality is generally suspected of having abandoned a safe territory and a clear concept for a minefield and a fuzzy concept”. In its simplest terms, however, equity is about “fairness” (Berne and Stiefel, 1984). But for the concept of equity to be meaningful, it needs to be defined in a way that permits empirical analysis.
In our review of the literature, we identified a number of different frameworks that could provide the basis for an empirical analysis of equity in education at the international level. These include the framework of the European Commission referenced above, the one developed by Demeuse, Crahay and Monseur (2001), as well as the more general research on educational equity in the United States and other countries. However, for this study we selected a framework developed in the early 1980s by Berne and Stiefel to measure the equity of state school finance systems in the United States, since it provides a very comprehensive approach to the general issue of educational equity.
In the next chapter, we present the framework developed by Berne and Stiefel for conceptualising and measuring empirically equity in education. We note here that the framework establishes some key principles about equity, including “horizontal equity”
which defines equity as “no difference” in observed values across units of observation and inequity as deviation from this “no difference” standard. The further the divergence from “no difference” on each of the statistical measures, the greater the “inequity” on the indicator of interest.
In the chapters that follow, we illustrate the use of this framework by applying a set of statistical measures to assess the degree of dispersion on selected education indicators across geographical regions within and across countries. In our comments on the results of the analyses, we observe how much countries diverge from the “no difference” standard and characterise countries as being closer to or further from the standard of horizontal equity. But we state here, and state again as part of each of our analyses, that this disparity from the “no difference” standard does not necessarily mean that a country’s education system is “inequitable” – largely because these disparities may result from different circumstances.
On the positive side, the observed regional disparities may be the result of countries’
policies to focus attention or concentrate resources in selected geographical areas in
order to broaden access or improve school quality. This concentration of activity or
resources could produce very high values on the indicator of interest in regions that are
the targets of this policy and, therefore, result in greater disparity on the key measures of variation. In this case, the greater disparity may be an intended consequence of a policy intended to promote “equity” and not an indicator of greater “inequity” in the education system.
Alternatively, high levels of disparity on an education measure may reflect a fundamental problem in the country’s education system and the lack of attention to this problem at the policy level. Differences in participation ratios in primary education in different regions of a country, for example, could very well be considered an equity issue if large proportions of children in some geographic areas of the country are not provided with access to education. Similarly, low levels of financial investment in some geographic regions could inhibit the ability of children living in those areas from getting a high-quality education. In these cases, greater disparity on measures of access to and resources invested in education could constitute an equity issue.
Finally, there are situations where large disparities on measures of variation may result from unusual situations. This could be the case where a substantial proportion of the units of observation have exceptionally high or low values on the indicator of interest because of unique circumstances. For example, in countries with a large number of small, sparsely-populated areas that cannot provide a standard programme of education, the values on the indicator of interest may be extremely high or extremely low and the result could be relatively high-disparity measures. Although this “disparity”
could create the appearance of “inequity,” it may not reflect the situation accurately:
exclusion of the unique values could provide a very different picture of the country’s education system.
In summary, large disparities on education indicators may create the appearance of
“inequity” in education systems. But disparities on indicator measures should not always
be interpreted as inequities. Just as with international indicator systems which compare
countries based on national averages, the equity measures provide a starting point for
understanding differences across countries. Where disparity measures suggest
potential equity problems, policymakers and researchers should look more closely at
the country’s unique demographic and economic characteristics, as well as its
education policies to get a more complete picture of the situation.
3. The equity framework
The preceding chapter highlighted the diverse approaches to conceptualising and measuring educational equity. In this chapter, we draw heavily on the seminal work of Berne and Stiefel (1984), whose framework for measuring the equity of school finance systems can be applied readily to broader analyses of educational equity. In their framework, they ask four guiding questions about equity: for whom, what, how and how much? In the following paragraphs each of these components of the equity framework is discussed further.
I. Targets of equity concerns
Children are often the targets of equity concerns because they spend a great deal of time in educational settings and many believe that their educational experiences should be equitably distributed. Taxpayers have sometimes been the focus of equity concerns related to school finance if taxpayers share the burden of supporting education. For the purposes of this equity study, sub-national administrative divisions within countries (i.e.
regions) are the target of equity concerns. The equity framework could easily be applied at the individual level when data are available.
II. Objects
The second component of this framework identifies the broader categories of indicators that should be distributed equitably. Berne and Stiefel identified inputs, outputs and outcomes. Education access and progression is another important category of objects.
Table 3.1 lists examples of objects that might be of interest when applying the current framework. Figure 3.1 displays the various potential combinations of targets and objects that an equity analysis might comprise; the approach used for this study’s analyses is highlighted.
Table 3.1. Types of objects
Access/progression Resources Results
Rates/ratios of:
Enrolment Entry Progression Repetition
Average class size Course availability Expenditure per pupil
Pupil-teacher ratios Quality of school facilities
Quality of textbooks Teacher education level Teacher experience and certification
Achievement test scores Graduation ratios
Income Occupational status
Figure 3.1. Objects and targets of equity
Objects of equity Targets of equity concerns
Access/progression Resources Results Gender
Socioeconomic status (SES) Race/ethnicity Student
characteristics
Disability status Type
(e.g. province, municipality) Urbanicity Regional
characteristics
Wealth
A. Access and progression
Education access is the most basic equity concern because learning, regardless of the quality, cannot occur without access. Progression is another concern because students must continue through the education system in order to maximise the educational benefits they experience. Hence, “access and progression” is one of the three objects that this framework comprises.
B. Resources
Inputs are the educational resources used to educate children. In the context of school finance equity, financial resources often measured as expenditure per pupil are valuable, common input measures. Inputs can also be measured in terms of physical resource levels, such as classrooms, teachers or even teachers with higher levels of educational attainment. One benefit of using physical resource levels as input measures is that they are in real terms; a disadvantage is the difficulty of combining different physical resources.
Resources are important because they are the means through which educational experiences are enriched; further, they are of particular interest in instances where they may affect future outputs or outcomes. Regions with relatively fewer resources may be at a disadvantage in providing high-quality education compared to regions with greater resources. The equity analyses in this study use public primary, secondary and combined primary and secondary expenditure per pupil and pupil-teacher ratios as the primary resource measures. Other potential resources of interest are displayed in Table 3.1.
C. Results
Outputs relate to the short-term results of schooling. Measures of equity in terms of
outputs may include completion ratios, graduation ratios or scores on achievement and
competency tests. Outputs may be considered equitable if they are equal (e.g. if students from different regions have similar graduation ratios) or if students who do not begin schooling at the same level of competency in a subject area, as one example, complete their education with similar levels of competence. Outcomes consist of the long-term results of schooling, such as income, occupational status or personal satisfaction. As one might expect, measuring outcomes poses significant difficulty due to the effects of intervening variables over time and because of inadequate data. We refer to outputs and outcomes collectively as results. Due to limited regional data, the analyses in this study do not include measures of results.
III. Equity principles
The third component of the Berne and Stiefel equity framework requires a decision about how to determine whether distributions of educational resources are equitable.
Specifically, what principles should be applied to analyse equity across regions? The three principles embodied by the framework – horizontal equity, vertical equity, equal opportunity – are highlighted in the previous chapter and are discussed here in greater detail.
A. Horizontal equity
Horizontal equity requires equal treatment of those who are equally situated. A horizontally equitable education system would treat students who are alike equally and ensure that they experience similar levels of educational resources and achieve similar results. Horizontal equity requires little or no variation in the dispersion of access, resources and results – no dispersion suggests perfect equity.
This study applies the standard of horizontal equity to regions within countries to analyse education access and resources. Relative to resources, the study assumes that all regions have similar characteristics (e.g. equal levels of urbanicity, equal proportions of wealthy/poor populations) and, therefore, should be treated equally. The following equity principle, vertical equity, could be applied to the resource indicators if more data were available at the regional level.
B. Vertical equity
Vertical equity recognises that students are not all the same and that their starting points relative to other students should be considered in an analysis of equity. In this case, providing children who (or regions that) are differently situated with different levels of resources may be considered fair. In this regard, an education system is made fairer because unique resources (e.g. specialised support staff or after-school programmes) are provided to achieve similar results (e.g. school completion) for a particular group of children or a specific region.
Individual or group characteristics that may necessitate differential educational
treatment include gender, race/ethnicity and social status; the fiscal capacity of regions
or school administrative units; or other local characteristics such as household income and poverty levels. However, in some cases differential treatment based on these characteristics may be necessary to make an education system more equitable. For example, if regions with high poverty tend to have poor educational results, increased resources targeting these regions may be seen as an improvement to educational equity because the intention is to make results more equal across the regions. A vertical equity standard should not be applied in the case of access/progression or results because there should not be differences across units on these types of measures.
C. Equal educational opportunity (EEO)
The third principle of equity, EEO, is based on the notion that all children should have an equal chance to succeed, with this success based on personal characteristics such as motivation and effort (Berne and Stiefel, 1999). Equal educational opportunity should result in no difference in educational success based on student characteristics or place of residence. For there to be equal opportunity, students should have access to resources that put them at “a fair starting line” and “conditions should be set up to allow the possibility for all to ‘succeed’” (Berne and Stiefel, 1999). In the United States, wealth neutrality is a form of equal opportunity requiring that the quality of education not have a relationship with the property wealth of school districts. This is because local property wealth is a significant source of school district revenues in the United States.
This study uses equal educational opportunity to address two main questions. First, do children who live in wealthier regions consistently have greater access to education or educational resources? Second, do children who live in urban areas have greater access to education or educational resources than those in rural areas? Gross regional product (GRP) per capita is used as the measure of regional wealth; regional population density (RPD) is used as a proxy for the urban or rural character of regional divisions in countries because the definitions of “urban” and “rural” are not consistent across countries. A second reason is that, even if there were standard definitions of these terms, many countries do not report data on pupils and teachers in these types of geographical areas. In this analysis, regions with greater population density are considered to be more “urban” than regions with smaller ratios of population to area.
It is important to note that the principles of vertical equity and equal educational opportunity are very much interrelated. In both cases there is a linkage between a specific target group (e.g. poor or disadvantaged children, children with disabilities) and an object of equity (e.g. enrolment in primary education, pupil-teacher ratio). The main difference is in the application of the two principles in an empirical analysis.
Vertical equity is determined in the same way that horizontal equity is determined,
i.e. by applying a measure of variation to the object of equity of interest. However, the
object of interest is adjusted to take into account the incidence of pupils that are the
targets of equity. In an analysis where expenditure per pupil is the object of equity, for
example, variation in per pupil expenditure would be based on a measure of
expenditure that is obtained by dividing total education expenditure by a weighted count
of pupils that takes into account the additional cost of providing appropriate services to children with this condition. Children with disabilities might count as two pupils when measuring expenditure per pupil, rather than as one pupil in an analysis based on horizontal equity.
Equal educational opportunity, in contrast, is determined through an analysis of the relationship between the target of equity and the object of equity, using statistical measures that relate these two components of the equity analysis. In an analysis based on data for individuals, equal educational opportunity might be determined by examining the correlation between a child’s family income and the amount of money the state spends on that child’s education. In analysis based on schools or geographical units, it might be determined by examining the relationship between the proportion of poor children in a school or community with the average expenditure per student in that school or community or with a weighted average expenditure per student derived in the manner described above.
It might be expected that there would be a strong congruence in a country’s measures of vertical equity and equal educational opportunity, since they are both approaching the issue of equity in a way that takes into account different student characteristics and educational needs. However, there are still distinctions between the two concepts that would lead to different approaches to measuring equity within and across countries.
IV. Measuring equity
The final component of the equity framework consists of the quantitative measures that are used to evaluate the extent to which an education system is either horizontally or vertically equitable and the extent to which there is equal educational opportunity. The work of Berne and Stiefel (1984) includes many empirical measures that would be useful for a more technical equity analysis. For the purposes of the current framework, more widely-used, practical measures were selected. These measures cover the core dimensions of equity while minimising complexity and burden of the framework for policymakers and other potential users.
A. Measures of horizontal equity
Measures of horizontal equity are statistics that capture the dispersion of an object’s distribution across regions – they capture how far distributions are from perfect equity.
In the case of equal dispersion, each region has the same level of education access,
resources or results. The Berne and Stiefel framework includes 11 measures that
quantify various dimensions of dispersion that could be useful in judging different
aspects of horizontal equity within a country. Four measures were selected to capture
the different dimensions of horizontal equity. Each of these is described in the following
paragraphs; their interpretation is displayed in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2. Interpreting horizontal equity measures
Indicators Horizontal equity
measures Enrolment ratios Expenditure per pupil Pupil-teacher ratios Range ratio 1.00 = no disparity; higher values signify greater disparity Coefficient of
variation 0.00 = no disparity; 1.00 = large disparity;
higher coefficients signify greater disparity
Gini coefficient * 0.00 = no disparity; 1.00 = large disparity;
higher coefficients signify greater disparity Adjusted
McLoone Index * *
1.00 = no disparity;
index values greater than 1.00 signify
disparity McLoone Index
*
1.00 = no disparity;
index values lower than
1.00 signify disparity *
* Not applicable.
1. Range ratio
The range ratio is calculated by dividing the highest value by the lowest value in a country’s distribution for a given indicator. A ratio of 1.0 would indicate perfect equity, whereas increasing values for the ratio suggest increasing disparity between regions at the ends of the distribution. The range ratio is the simplest of the horizontal equity measures and does not take into account how access, resources or results are distributed among the regions between the ends of the distribution. Further, regions at these ends may be outliers that are anomalies relative to the other regions.
2. McLoone Index/adjusted McLoone Index
The McLoone Index is frequently used to examine the distribution of expenditure per pupil and is calculated by taking the sum of expenditure per pupil for each region below the median and dividing this by the sum that would exist if each region below the median had expenditure per pupil equal to the median. The index ranges from 0 to 1, with "1" indicating perfect equity. In the case of expenditure per pupil, the index increases as expenditure per pupil in regions below the 50
thpercentile approaches the median expenditure; it decreases as expenditure per pupil in these regions falls further from the median. Whereas other measures increase as inequality increases, the McLoone Index focuses on equality and becomes larger as the distribution becomes more equal (Peternick, Smerdon, Fowler and Monk, 1998).
In the equity framework for this study, it was necessary to also use an adjusted
McLoone Index because, in the case of pupil-teacher ratios, the regions of interest are
those above the median. This is because higher pupil-teacher ratios mean fewer
educational resources relative to regions with lower ratios. An index value of 1.00
indicates perfect equity while higher index values suggest greater divergence from
horizontal equity.
Both versions of the McLoone Index are less complicated than other measures but also lack some of their strengths and should not be used alone to interpret the level of educational equity in a country. In particular, the index does not account for the value of the mean or the distribution of expenditure per pupil in regions above the median; the adapted index does not take into account pupil-teacher ratios in regions below the median. Hence, countries with an index value close to 1.00 may still be relatively inequitable.
3. Coefficient of variation
The third measure of horizontal equity, the coefficient of variation, measures the variability of an indicator around the mean value. It is calculated by taking the standard deviation and dividing by the mean. Perfect equity would result in a coefficient of 0.00;
higher values would signify greater dispersion or inequity.
Unlike the range ratio and both versions of the McLoone Index, the coefficient of variation takes into account all regions in a distribution. The coefficient will not change if all regions experience similar proportional increases in an object. This measure is valuable for resources measured in monetary values such as expenditure per pupil that are likely to experience inflation over time.
4. Gini coefficient
The final horizontal equity measure included in the framework of this study is the Gini coefficient. It is based on a Lorenz curve and, in the case of pupil-teacher ratios, shows the cumulative proportion of students relative to the cumulative proportion of teachers across regions. Put differently, the Gini coefficient measures how far a country’s distribution of teachers is from providing a particular percentage of students with an equal percentage of teachers.
If all students have equal proportions of teachers, then the curve would be a straight line with a positive 45-degree slope (i.e. a line of perfect equity). The Gini coefficient measures the difference between the line of perfect equity and the Lorenz curve. A coefficient of 1.00 indicates maximum variation among the regions, whereas a coefficient of 0.00 indicates perfect equity.
Figure 3.3 illustrates the Gini coefficient. Tables 3.2 and 3.3 display the data used in this figure. In this example, country B has a larger Gini coefficient. This is evident by the distance of its Lorenz curve from the 45-degree line and the raw data. As shown in Table 3.3, regions 1 to 5 each have 10% of the total number of students but each only have 4% of teachers in the country. In contrast, regions 9 and 10 have the same percentage of students, but 19% and 26% of teachers in the country, respectively.
Because these differences are not as great in country A, its Lorenz curve is closer to the
45-degree line and it has a lower Gini coefficient.
Figure 3.3. Illustration of the Gini coefficient
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Proportion of students
Proportion of teachers
Country A Country B Line of Perfect Equity
Table 3.2. Illustration of Gini coefficient – distribution of pupil-teacher ratios for country A
Region Pupil-teacher
ratios Number of
pupils Percentage of
pupils Number of
teachers Percentage of teachers
1 30 200 10 7 6 2 28 200 10 7 6 3 26 200 10 8 7 4 24 200 10 8 7 5 22 200 10 9 8 6 18 200 10 11 10 7 16 200 10 13 11 8 14 200 10 14 13 9 12 200 10 17 15 10 10 200 10 20 18
